posted on November 9, 2000 09:19:10 PM
Here's an interesting little tidbit I just heard to throw in the already headed for upheaval mix...IF a new vote in Palm Beach County is called for, the parties will both be allowed to campaign again!!! Can you even imagine???
posted on November 9, 2000 09:58:14 PM
On a re vote I'll bet no matter how hard he campaigns Nader won't get the original 5,564 he got in Palm Beach Couny.
Any takers? I'll give great odds.
The idea of a re vote is one that I hope no reasonable judge will even consider.
posted on November 10, 2000 04:33:44 AMuaru - Just out of curiosity, why don't you think a 'reasonable' judge should even consider the idea? My idea of a 'reasonable' judge is one that considers *all* options.
posted on November 10, 2000 05:08:52 AM
I would like to see some explanation from the press on why the recount totals that the Associated Press have Bush ahead by 200 and some, and the Official totals (neither of which are verified yet) have Bush ahead by 1700 and some??
posted on November 10, 2000 05:23:55 AMbarbarake The idea of a 'redo' is something that had a lot of factors that I'm uncomfortable with.
Not all ballots were cast for Bush and Gore, the other candidates got a significant amount of votes. Nader got over 5,000. They would be casting a tie breaker. I'm not anxious to give to voting impaired people that power. Basically they'd be able to elect the president, switching votes would impossible to verify.
The ballots they used have been used across the US for years, if they've failed to upgrade their election equipment they've finally got a good reason to spend the funds on it now. The voters could have asked for help, you don't holler "REDO" after the fact. That is a right reserved for children.
posted on November 10, 2000 05:53:26 AMWell, the latest news I just heard is that the Republican party has now called for a THIRD count! Another recount, due to start tomorrow. Probably because Gore's just too darned close on his own even without all of those additional thousands and thousands of people who voted for him that the Republicans don't want to count. Humph!
This is incorrect. The Democratic side has requested (IMO justly) a recount by hand in a few counties.
uaru:
We don't seem to agree on many issues (especially PayPal), but you are right on the money on this one. It is certainly regretable that a few voters in Florida (yes, 19000 out of 6 million is a few) and probably every other state in the union were confused by the ballot. But the bottom line is that they should have asked for help. Surely they knew that punching 2 holes would make their vote meaningless. Of course if they didn't know this, they have problems that extend beyond the realm of the election.
A revote would be even more invalid than the original. Election day provides a "snapshot" of the voter's attitudes, opinions, and political will at a single point in time. A revote would provide a result not even close to what was intended on Nov. 7. Hindsight would cause many voters to change their mind based on the results of the election overall.
posted on November 10, 2000 06:48:31 AMI would like to see some explanation from the press on why the recount totals that the Associated Press have Bush ahead by 200 and some, and the Official totals (neither of which are verified yet) have Bush ahead by 1700 and some?? So would I Meya.
I don't understand why we are now believing the medias count over the State Attorney Generals. Could it be that the media has proven itself so infallible in this area? HA
posted on November 10, 2000 09:34:57 AM
abingdon, I heard with my own little ears on the local news yesterday that the Republicans asked for a third count. And also, yes, that the Democrats have asked for a hand-count. But I do agree with you on the 'snapshot' theory. It is impossible to tell what results a revote will have, especially when opinions are being swayed as we speak, in both directions.
And the can of worms is likely to be opened, with recounts in Iowa, Oregon, etc.
Anyone want to place a wager on how many times these ballots are counted over and over again and how many states will ultimately be recounted?
edited to add, Meya, I'd like to know that too.
[ edited by kiheicat on Nov 10, 2000 09:35 AM ]
"Not all ballots were cast for Bush and Gore, the other candidates got a significant amount of votes. Nader got over 5,000. They would be casting a tie breaker. I'm not anxious to give to voting impaired people that power. Basically they'd be able to elect the president, switching votes would impossible to verify."
Are you saying that everyone who voted for Nader is 'voting impaired'?
I doubt that many of the Republicans or Democrats in WPB will change their vote. You're right - the Nader people *might* switch their vote to Gore.
But then it also makes sense that the Buchanan people *might* switch their vote to Bush.
So it should be pretty close to a wash (unless you think the Buchanan votes were mistakes really meant for Gore). Hmmmm....
Let's be honest - we all know that Bush lost Florida. The Bush camp can talk about legalities all they want, but we all know in our hearts that Gore really won the popular vote in Florida. He also won the popular vote (albeit by a narrow margin) in the nation as a whole. The republican party can try to 'spin' it as much as they can but the American public is not as dumb as they think.
posted on November 10, 2000 09:54:44 AMLet's be honest - we all know that Bush lost Florida. The Bush camp can talk about legalities all they want, but we all know in our hearts that Gore really won the popular vote in Florida. He also won the popular vote (albeit by a narrow margin) in the nation as a whole. The republican party can try to 'spin' it as much as they can but the American public is not as dumb as they think.
Let's be honest - roughly 50% of the voters (or more) would disagree with you. The evidence is clear. Bush won the popular vote in Florida and this will hold up after all the recounts and absentee ballots over processed.
This is in no way "spin" by the republican party. This is childishness and refusing to accept the outcome of the election by the democrats.
[ edited by abingdoncomputers on Nov 10, 2000 09:55 AM ]
posted on November 10, 2000 10:04:38 AM
The overseas ballots are mostly from Service men and women. Past trends on those ballots is normally 55% or more republican. Of course, a full count will have to happen. The vote count that all the networks and internet sites are using are based on the AP's numbers. They don't agree at all with the official numbers. Looks like it will be next week until we get a verified total.
I had to laugh this morning, The Today Show had James Carvelle on. While I don't agree with his politics, I do get a charge out of some of his comments. He said that someone needed to go into the network news rooms and start shooting with a tranquilizer gun. He was referring to the "sky is falling" mentality that is taking over reasonable thought.
posted on November 10, 2000 10:07:36 AMSo, how do you know what the absentee ballots will show? Can you tell us winning lottery numbers too?
Past performance is a reliable predictor of future results. Not 100% but reliable enough to make a pretty safe prediction. If I'm wrong I'm prepared to eat crow. But I seriously doubt if I'll have to take it out of the freezer.
Lottery results are random, therefore they cannot be predicted. Sorry.
[ edited by abingdoncomputers on Nov 10, 2000 10:08 AM ]
posted on November 10, 2000 11:38:41 AM
Just one question for all the Bush supporters. If he is so confident he really won the popular vote in Florida, why not agree to a recount?
Heck, in that situation, I would *insist* on a revote to prove I had won fair and square and validate the legitimacy of my presidency.
(And before anyone answers with 'why should he, he's already won', my answer to that is 'to validate the legitimacy of his presidency'. Because - at this point - no one regards his 'win' as legitimate.)
posted on November 10, 2000 11:45:32 AM
There was nothing to agree to. State law already called for a recount due to the closness of the vote, it was going to happen regardless of the other issues.
posted on November 10, 2000 02:56:50 PM
For all of you that are so eager to predict a Republican majority in the absentee ballots, just be aware that past trends may not apply to this election here. There are thousands of American citizens living in Israel, and there was a strong effort to get those registered Democrats there to vote via absentee ballot. Nobody knows for sure how many absentee ballots were sent out, nor what percentage of those will come in. Don't forget that there is a lot more going on in the middle east than four years ago, in addition to the fact that Lieberman is Jewish. So all you Republicans out there...don't count your chickens before they are hatched.
posted on November 10, 2000 03:03:32 PMIn the first signs of concern over Gore’s strategy from within his own party, Sen. Robert Torricelli, D-N.J., the chief Democratic campaign strategist in the Senate, said the country would be best served by bringing the election to a timely and definitive close.
I want Al Gore to win this election but, more than that, I want somebody to win this election,” Torricelli said. “I would urge both Al Gore and George Bush to think of the country — the continuity of government, its stability — and avoid any collateral attacks on the process.”
Breaux, D-La., said through a spokesman, “Both candidates have the right to be assured by the courts that all election laws have been adhered to. This process, however, should not be dragged out over an extended period of time.”
posted on November 10, 2000 04:12:17 PM
My husband said that he heard an interview on the radio today with an official from Florida. He said that she clarified about the so called "thrown out" 19,000 ballots. She explained that approximately 19,000 voters requested new ballots at the polls, they were given new ballots, and those people did in fact get to vote again.
So, when the media said that 19,000 ballots were "thrown out", they were technically correct, but they failed to mention that those ballots were thrown out at the polling place, in accordance with Florida law, and the people who had messed up those ballots were given a second chance to vote correctly.
Don't believe everything the media is feeding you.
posted on November 11, 2000 07:29:08 AM
abingdoncomputers:
>>>>>Past performance is a reliable predictor of future results. Not 100% but reliable enough to make a pretty safe prediction.<<<
If you believe this, then it should also hold true for the FLA voters who voted for Buchanen instead of Gore. Past performance shows that this county had been Democrat.
